Fairweather

Will more moderators mean less freedom of expression around here? Just a thought.....

I don't believe this is true. Even if it is true at present, what assurances do we have that environmental lawyers will not attempt to twist the language of The Rule and impose more restrictions on recreational uses? What assurances can Mr Inslee give that The Roadless Rules won't be the "first step" in a larger push to decomission existing trailhead access by letting more roads fall into disrepair each year for the sole purpose of expanding roadless forests? Until I can be assured that existing access will be preserved, I do not support the Roadless Rule. Will you be passing my concerns and opinion along to Mr Inslee, Catbird?

Sorry, I just can't help myself.... Sounds like the latest copy of the Physicians For Social Responsibility newsletter just landed in your mailbox and got you all riled' up! I know it must be difficult for a person of your stature to live in a country so full of "fucking stupid" citizens, but try to at least consider it may sometimes be your ideas that require re-examination. I suspect incompetent doctors have killed more children this year than American bombs.

Scrambler, Here is a sincere for your post. Bill ORilley is a pinhead. I liked him when he first hit the airwaves, and the guy has the makings of a brain, but his condesending style, tone, and mannerism quickly began grating on my sensabilities. I especially hate the way he posts text on the TV screen as he reads it verbatum... as if his audience is a group of kindergarteners. I rarely watch his show. ....but I will happily defend him here against the likes of his biggest detractor, Al Franken. Now that guy is the dumbest *@#% on the planet.

Trask, Let's hope your 'date' tonight doesn't end like the last one....

Is it just me, or does that matrix look like the old "off the air" pattern from chanel 13 in the 1960's and 70's? All that is missing is that indian cheif in the center.

Wifey is sittin' on my lap and I'm gettin' it right now!.... Hi Trask! ...That was her. She's such an exhibitionist. OW! That hurts!.... I was only joking, darling....come back!

I SHIT YOU NOT..... I answered all of the questions honestly: No Yes Yes No Maybe Maybe Yes Maybe Maybe No I guess this test is a little slanted like Dustin said. ...Or maybe I'm more liberal than some of you think. Or maybe some of you aren't as centrist as you think. Or maybe... Another 2.12cm to the left and I would have had to commit ritual suicide.

JoshK, Russian Girly-Man in training, WTF are you talking about, you asswipe? Did you read the posts/replies? Are you truly the moron I always suspected you to be? Here is my source: http://www.cia.gov/cia/publications/factbook/geos/gm.html Some of the words are kinda' big. This might help.... an early Christmas gift for you: http://www.m-w.com/home.htm

"If I were a moderator" by Fairweather: If I were a moderator I would harrass, mock, belittle, and thoroughly humiliate those whom I deemed liberal, or otherwise disagreed with. Leftists would be banned outright. If I were a moderator I would demand absolute loyalty and start a cc.com patriots club. Members would have to swear an allegiance to America, the Republican (or Libertarian) Party, and of course, to me. I would gleefully announce Thursday nights as 'right-wing pub-club night' and Tacoma would host these events exclusively. If I were a moderator I would organize conservative-only climbing trips. Blue-bags would not be allowed on these trips and prizes would be awarded for the foulest stool left rotting in a heavily traveled climbing corridor. All climbers would be required to carry guns. Big, big guns. Dogs would be welcome, but leashes forbidden. Each rope team would carry a boom box.... If I were a moderator......

Wouldn't AGENT ORANGE be more effective for that?

I don't know why bear hunting bothers me so much. As you know, I'm no soft-hearted, meat is murder goof-ball. And I while I have never personally shot a large mammal, I have killed my share of wing'ed creatures, and I have been an armed observer on a few deer and Elk hunts and enjoyed it a great deal. I certainly have travelled armed in Bear country, and wouldn't hesitate to shoot a bruin that was clearly (very clearly) a threat to my party. All that said, I just can't understand why anyone would hunt bears. They seem to posess a higher level of intelligence than most other game animals and I don't see them as anything but a 'persecuted' species much like wolves. Ditto big cats and Mountain Goats.

Secret Service Warns Eminem Over Lyrics Monday, December 08, 2003 WASHINGTON — The U.S. Secret Service (search) has looked into reports that rapper Eminem (search) wrote lyrics that said "I'd rather see the president dead," but it doesn't plan a formal investigation, said a Secret Service spokesman. John Gill, the spokesman, cautioned such lyrics can have unintended consequences on others. "The Secret Service has no current plans to open an investigation into this matter," Gill said Monday. But "we are concerned about communications that can be interpreted in a manner perhaps not intended by the artist, and the potential peripheral impact that such lyrics can have on other individuals." The Secret Service made preliminary inquiries because of lyrics in Eminem's song, "We Are American." The lyrics say "(Expletive) money, I don't rap for dead presidents, I'd rather see the president dead." Representatives of Eminem could not be reached Monday night for comment. Eminem's spokesman said recently the song was "unfinished" and that "there was no determination where, when, how or if it was going to be used." Gill said the Secret Service must balance its duties of investigating such communications with its respect for the constitutional right of freedom of speech. He added, however, that it was necessary for the Secret Service to look into communications that could be considered threatening to the president. "The Secret Service takes every potential threat against the president seriously," Gill said. "We don't have the luxury to do otherwise. "

I was talking to a government-official-who-shall-remain-nameless at Copper Center a couple years ago who told me that Paul Claus landed one of his planes on the summit of Blackburn, got out and walked around, then hopped back in and took off! I've also 'heard' that a pair of snowmobilers has summited Sanford in winter, or at least come close.

Strange I haven't read about any specifics, and since Germany relies on nuclear for 30% of its electricity production, and is rich in Uranium, I doubt I will. No doubt they will replace this nuclear generated electricity with more fossil-fuel fired generating stations like the ones that currently account for over 60% of their power production. I would also point out that Germany has yet to ratify The Kyoto Accord.

Glad to hear you are all on board the (CO2-free!) Nuclear Power bandwagon! Lets fire up those reactors ASAP.

...Or it might be those scabs are interrupting an otherwise normal flow.

NOTHING is worse than getting the shits on a climb. (DON'T drink two big glasses of milk before a climb, especially if you never drink it to begin with!) I got 'em bad during a one-day Rainier climb a couple years ago. I spent the hours of 4am - 9am staggering back and forth between the shelter and the outhouse while my ropemates and little brother made the summit. When they got back down, I think I was more worn-out than they were! What a fucked up trip that was.

The first link doesn't work. The second link just leads me to a form letter and a bunch of hysteria. (IMHO)

I think it would be cool to hang out at Muir, or Leavenworth wearing a "BANNED FROM CC.com" t-shirt...you know, with a big red circle/slash.

Kind of a funny website..... http://search.netscape.com/ns/boomframe.jsp?query=jabba+the+hut+picture&page=2&offset=0&result_url=redir%3Fsrc%3Dwebsearch%26amp%3BrequestId%3D5a4363e09d756872%26amp%3BclickedItemRank%3D20%26amp%3BuserQuery%3Djabba%2Bthe%2Bhut%2Bpicture%26amp%3BclickedItemURN%3Dhttp%253A%252F%252Fwww.glennbeck.com%252Fnews%252F05202002.shtml%26amp%3BinvocationType%3Dnext%26amp%3BfromPage%3DNSCPNextPrev&remove_url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.glennbeck.com%2Fnews%2F05202002.shtml

I just visited The Sierra Club site and the only link I could find even closely regarding your statement is this: http://www.oregonlive.com/news/oregonian/index.ssf?/base/front_page/106440552699250.xml If the Sierra Club wants to "allow" the clearing of trees near homes (on private property?) and considers this a compromise...well then, that's real big of them. The article, and your statement above, don't say if this compromise involved public or private land so I'll just have to take you at your word. BTW, is the Roadless Areas issue decided, or is it still working its way up through the courts? If the Sierra Club indeed came to a compromise on this issue, then upon what do they base their continued harping about the initiative? They don't like the compromise they agreed upon? It wasn't enough? They're angry that they had to compromise at all? I guess I just don't understand.....

1.) The recent Medicare Bill 2.) Steel Tarriffs Neither of these issues were well received by conservatives, and that Bush thought he could ever placate liberals to any degree just demonstrates the folly of 'compromise'. The Sierra Club's version of compromise .....is not to. I can't think of any issue that any major environmental groups have shown any interest in compromising on. There just comes a point when your adversaries say to themselves, "what's the use in talking to these guys?"

I would like to think it was for that assinine picture you posted of the plane crashing into the WTC as a giant seductress licked the towers. (Although I'm sure that wasn't the reason.) That was just as fucked up as Metalhead's picture. Nevertheless, I hope the moderators will find it in their hearts to reinstate you as I don't believe in shutting down debate/ideas. Besides, you provide a nice contrast to Fairweather's voice of reason and common sense.

Okay, Fairweather. I went and read the report. In all eleven cases for intervention to prevent violence, the outcome was the same, "insufficient evidence to determine outcome". This means they couldn't tell one way or the other for a variety of reasons ranging from lack of studies, lack of necessary records, inconsistent results, etc. This is not the same thing as "no cause and effect" as you put it. Did anyone go read that report? Personally, I think that panel was afraid to reach a conclusion for fear of the backlash that would inevitably ensue. Your juvenile attempts at becoming a pollster notwithstanding, doesn't "insufficient evedince to determine outcome" mean essentially the same thing when the original challenge to The Frasier Report came from you? Would you tighten current gun laws when the evidence you need to do so cannot be produced? The onus here remains on you and your challenge to the original post. Where is the study to demonstrate your position in the affirmative? I don't think you've demonstrated anything here other than your own childish nature vis a vis your "poll".